Author Topic: Ahimelek vs. Hand Limit (Read 5453 times)

Captain Kirk · « **on:** April 18, 2013, 12:03:59 AM »

I start my turn with 8 cards and draw 3 (11 cards). Jair returns from set-aside with Provisions and I draw 2 (13 cards). I attack with Angel Under the Oak and draw 2 (15 cards) and switch for Jair and choose not to draw 2 and choose my Goliath + weapon to block. My Jair is bounced from battle and I put Ahimelek in battle to return Goliath to my hand.

What happens?

A. Goliath can't return to hand because there is not room for both the weapon and character to return to hand.
B. Goliath can return to hand but weapon is discarded.
C. Other

What if Hating the Light was also on Goliath and I had 14 cards in my hand when Ahimelek entered battle?

A. Goliath can't return to hand because there is not room for weapon, placed enhancement, and character to return to hand.
B. Goliath can return to hand and I choose one other enhancement to return to hand and other is discarded.
C. Other

Thanks,
Kirk

Drrek · « **Reply #1 on:** April 18, 2013, 12:33:51 AM »

I would think that Goliath would return but the weapon would be discarded, because you would have to do as much as you could for the ability, and it targets the EC not the weapon.

I have no idea for the second case.

Jmbeers · « **Reply #2 on:** April 18, 2013, 02:13:45 AM »

This question is awesome no matter what the ruling ends up being. I'm leaning towards the answer being 42

Minion of Jesus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 18, 2013, 08:05:25 AM »

Wow. Confusion. My impulse is to say that in both cases he returns to hand without any items, but that's just me.

CountFount · « **Reply #4 on:** April 18, 2013, 08:46:57 AM »

Drawing is prevented due to the hand rule game rule, why couldn't Ahimelek be prevented from entering battle because of the hand limit game rule.

Suggestion, not thought out. $:-\$ I'm old stop attacking me. Where are those voices coming from?

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #5 on:** April 18, 2013, 09:09:47 AM »

I think that regardless of situation, the opponent probably chooses what goes and what stays since he controls the character (just like they can choose not to retain a weapon played).

Professoralstad · « **Reply #6 on:** April 18, 2013, 09:54:21 AM »

I would say that just as you can draw up to the hand limit, you should be able to return to hand up to the hand limit. Which means you return Goliath but discard the weapon, or you return Goliath and HtL and discard the weapon. The idea being that placed cards always follow their hosts, while weapons are slightly less permanent (since you can choose to discard them after battle if you'd like).

If a cleaner approach is needed, I would suggest a modification to the hand limit rule to specify that the hand limit only applies to drawing.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2013, 10:20:04 AM »

I disagree. There is no heirarchy for which cards you can fit into your hand. Whether you want the weapon or the placed enhancement is your choice.

We have the Hand Limit for a reason, and making exceptions will only cause players to find a way to abuse the exceptions.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2013, 10:22:02 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 18, 2013, 10:20:04 AM

I disagree. There is no heirarchy for which cards you can fit into your hand. Whether you want the weapon or the placed enhancement is your choice.

We have the Hand Limit for a reason, and making exceptions will only cause players to find a way to abuse the exceptions.

I think there's the logical hierarchy of Character first (since he's the actual target) and then if the other cards can't follow due to game rule (hand limit) they fizzle just like if Goliath had been discarded after an interrupt and were trying to be reactivated.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #9 on:** April 18, 2013, 11:36:43 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 18, 2013, 10:20:04 AM

I disagree. There is no heirarchy for which cards you can fit into your hand. Whether you want the weapon or the placed enhancement is your choice.

We have the Hand Limit for a reason, and making exceptions will only cause players to find a way to abuse the exceptions.

That's possible as well, I was just thinking that the game rule that placed cards always follow hosts is more strict than the rule that weapons follow hosts, since weapons can be removed. What I do know is that Goliath should go first, since as Alex pointed out, he is the target. You just have the two game rules conflicting, and hand limit should supercede the placed cards follow hosts rule, since it supercedes other rules (like the draw 3 at the beginning of your turn if you have 14+ cards at the beginning of your turn).

However, the reason Hand Limit was created was specifically to stop mass drawing in T2 Combo decks. Other abilities that get cards in your hand are much more limited in scope, so I think restricting the hand limit to drawing (i.e. You can never draw cards such that your hand is larger than 16 cards) would retain the necessary limit without having to worry about these types of situations. The other option would be to allow you to have more than 16 cards in your hand to complete an ability, but then force you to discard down to 16 before any other abilities take place. That would probably need more refinement, and either change would be vetted, but I think that the simple example of this thread could easily become a more complex and confusing example, so it's something that might need to be looked at.

Captain Kirk · « **Reply #10 on:** April 18, 2013, 12:04:48 PM »

Quote

The other option would be to allow you to have more than 16 cards in your hand to complete an ability, but then force you to discard down to 16 before any other abilities take place.

I don't believe that would be a desirable solution as Sin in the Camp would live again. That deck draws a number of unneeded cards once the combo starts (duplicate characters, etc) that the player would love to discard if that meant being able to draw over 16.

I think the simplest rule would be to allow the player to pick which cards go to hand and discard the remainder. I would understand if we forced the player to put Goliath in hand first since he was the main target but there are cases I would rather have Foreign Sword for offense and lose Goliath if I can only take 1 back, especially as I can recur Goliath.

Kirk

Mageduckey · « **Reply #11 on:** April 18, 2013, 12:37:27 PM »

I agree with Kirk, except that the character targeted to return to hand should be the first card to go. How can the enhancements follow him to hand if he hasn't gone to the hand? Then, only if there is room, should weapons and placed cards follow. At that point, I think it would be up to the holder of Goliath to choose which enhancements went to hand or discard pile.

Gabe · « **Reply #12 on:** April 18, 2013, 01:09:45 PM »

The character has to go first or the other cards can't follow. Beyond that I would allow the player to choose which of the placed/held cards are kept and which are discarded.

Chris · « **Reply #13 on:** April 18, 2013, 01:13:24 PM »

Quote from: CountFount on April 18, 2013, 08:46:57 AM

Drawing is prevented due to the hand rule game rule, why couldn't Ahimelek be prevented from entering battle because of the hand limit game rule.

Because you cannot have abilities prevented when you don't even know what they're going to do. What if Ahimelek was going to put another character in hand?

Redoubter · « **Reply #14 on:** April 18, 2013, 07:14:15 PM »

From the Tournament Host Guide:

Quote

Hand Limit: At no time may the cards in your hands exceed 16. This rule takes procedure over any
instruction on a card. If you play a card that instructs you to draw cards you must stop at 16. During Discard Phase reduce your hand to eight or less (Ten if you using tables of the law).

The rule says first that it takes procedure (precedence?) over any instruction, but then tells you that only when you draw would it stop at 16.

I do not think that it is a good idea to have a rule that would prevent a return ability from going over the hand limit, as that would also allow for potential exploitation with forced-draw + return-to-hand. The rule can be simplified to restricting drawing when you reach 16 (which I honestly thought was the rule anyway).

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #15 on:** April 18, 2013, 07:36:36 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 18, 2013, 07:14:15 PM

I do not think that it is a good idea to have a rule that would prevent a return ability from going over the hand limit, as that would also allow for potential exploitation with forced-draw + return-to-hand.

I don't think that anyone is going to be purposefully giving their opponent 8 extra cards on their turn to get them to the point where they could possibly not have room in their hand for a single return-to-hand ability.

I agree with the consensus of the elders in this thread that the character would return to hand (if there was room), and that the player would then choose to also return-to-hand whatever attached cards they have room for.

Redoubter · « **Reply #16 on:** April 18, 2013, 07:38:08 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 18, 2013, 07:36:36 PM

I agree with the consensus of the elders in this thread that the character would return to hand (if there was room), and that the player would then choose to also return-to-hand whatever attached cards they have room for.

Just because it matters, what would be the result if there was not room on your ruling? Could it be done, would they be discarded, or something else?

Gabe · « **Reply #17 on:** April 18, 2013, 07:43:31 PM »

If the hand was already at 16 then the character would simply not be returned to hand. It's an action that cannot be taken because its overridden by a game rule. There's nothing that states a character is discarded (or anything else) if it cannot be returned to hand. The only reason the enhancements would be discarded in the examples above is because they no longer have a character in play to reside on.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #18 on:** April 19, 2013, 08:21:11 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on April 18, 2013, 07:43:31 PM

If the hand was already at 16 then the character would simply not be returned to hand.

So, in essence, Speed Deckers are immune to "Return to Hand" abilities.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #19 on:** April 19, 2013, 09:25:00 AM »

Yup. Good call YMT.

I would rule that special abilities override game rules and come up with a different way to stop mass drawing besides trying to create a game rule to stop card abilities.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #20 on:** April 19, 2013, 09:55:24 AM »

There is an unwritten hierarchy of special abilities and game rules. Some special abilities overrule some game rules. Some game rules overrule other game rules. Some special abilities overrule some special abilities. This is actually a lot more complicated than this one issue.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #21 on:** April 19, 2013, 10:34:00 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 19, 2013, 09:55:24 AM

There is an unwritten hierarchy of special abilities and game rules. Some special abilities overrule some game rules. Some game rules overrule other game rules. Some special abilities overrule some special abilities. This is actually a lot more complicated than this one issue.

I see that you decided to just plop this into a bunch of threads, but that only underscores the need for change. This type of inconsistency is what makes being a host so difficult, almost to the point of disinterest in being a host. Why can't their be a heirarchy that is logical and conclusive. This may certainly cause some cards to be ruled differently than the status quo, but I think that would be better than making it up as we go. Hey! That rhymes!

To me it seems that we are just deciding what we want cards to do or not do as combos are discovered, but there will always be new combos found, and spotty rulings will only make combo-builders more resilient to circumvent those rulings.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #22 on:** April 19, 2013, 10:46:44 AM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 19, 2013, 10:34:00 AM

I see that you decided to just plop this into a bunch of threads, but that only underscores the need for change.

By a "bunch" of threads, I guess you mean 2

I also would like to see this codified, but it is a huge task that you are asking, and it's something that has existed forever in the game. I remember a huge thread like 6 years ago about why cards that were protected (ie. in KotW) are still shuffled by A New Beginning. The answer is that the game rule that "cards follow the cards that they are on/in" supersedes the special ability of protection. However, as people have already pointed out, the whole idea of special abilities is that they cause things to happen that don't normally happen by game rule (ie. heroes turning into LSs by being captured).

We all sort of know intuitively 95% of the time which way to go in a specific situation regarding whether the SA or the game rule wins. But to actually go through and specifically spell it out for all possible interactions of SAs and game rules would be a MASSIVE project.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #23 on:** April 19, 2013, 11:51:18 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 19, 2013, 10:46:44 AM

By a "bunch" of threads, I guess you mean 2

It was the first two threads that I came across...

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 19, 2013, 10:46:44 AM

We all sort of know ...

Whoa, whoa, whoa..... you're not really going to go there, are you? Need I remind you of the Odd Couple episode about assuming. The fact that we have this Message Board indicates that not everyone thinks the same.

Now, what was that you were saying...

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 19, 2013, 10:46:44 AM

We all sort of know intuitively 95% of the time which way to go in a specific situation regarding whether the SA or the game rule wins.

The 5% show up at major tournaments and cause problems that could have been avoided by an overarching rule.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 19, 2013, 10:46:44 AM

But to actually go through and specifically spell it out for all possible interactions of SAs and game rules would be a MASSIVE project.

This is a cop out. I do not think it is as massive as you think. The problem would be changing the status quo for how some cards have been ruled historically.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #24 on:** April 19, 2013, 01:11:24 PM »

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on April 19, 2013, 11:51:18 AM

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 19, 2013, 10:46:44 AM
But to actually go through and specifically spell it out for all possible interactions of SAs and game rules would be a MASSIVE project.

This is a cop out. I do not think it is as massive as you think. The problem would be changing the status quo for how some cards have been ruled historically.

The other problem is that there are ~5-10 issues being discussed by the playtesters at the moment. The only issue that came to a concensus recently from the Elders caused another couple of controversies to arise. Now that the playtesting is largely done, we are trying to focus on resolving those issues, but I will assure you that pretty much any change to the status quo is a large undertaking, because of the many cards to deal with, rules that it will affect, and varying opinions of the playtesters.

I too would like to see a bit more concrete guidelines in this matter, as it is important for the game and its players to have clear, consistent rules. I have been fortunate to work with a lot of playtesters who love the game and are willing to put in a lot of time and effort to make it better, but not all of us can be working on it all the time, and least of all Rob, who is the only person who can approve of major changes, and is also running the rest of the 95% of the business that is CGD. I hope that we will be able to get to it eventually, but I assure you it does take a significant amount of time.

News:

Author Topic: Ahimelek vs. Hand Limit (Read 5453 times)

Chris